it will be considered presumption for any one to prescribe to him any time for the calling of that assembly."

Charles kept his promise, and now only thought of how he should govern alone.

y Parl. Hist. vol. ii. col. 525.

HISTORY OF

THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION,

FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I.

BOOK THE SECOND.

1629-1640.

NOTHING is so dangerous as to take a system of government as it were on trial, with the expectation that it may at any time be changed. Charles committed this fault. He had attempted to govern in concert with the parliament; but at the same time continually declared that if parliament was not submissive he would do without it. He now entered upon the career of despotism with the same thoughtlessness, believing that, after all, if necessity forced him to it, he could again return to parliaments.

His most able councillors were of the same opinion. Neither Charles nor any about him had conceived the project of abolishing for ever the ancient usages of England, or the great national council. Rather imprudent than audacious, rather insolent than obstinate, their words and actions went beyond their settled designs. The king, they thought, had shown himself kind and just

towards his people; he had allowed a great deal, granted a great deal. But nothing could satisfy the commons; they required the king to put himself under their guidance and tuition; this he could not do without ceasing to be king. When the king and parliament could not agree, it was the duty of parliament to give way; for sovereignty belonged to the king alone. Since the commons would not give up, he was driven to govern without them; the necessity was evident; sooner or later the people would become sensible of this, and then, when parliament should become more moderate, nothing would prevent the king from recalling it in case of need.

With still less foresight than the council, the court only saw in the dissolution a relief from trouble. In presence of the commons, the courtiers lived in a state of constraint; none of them dared to push boldly their fortune, nor visibly to enjoy their credit. The vexations of the sovereign interrupted the intrigues, and spread a gloom over the festivals of Whitehall. The king was care-worn, the queen intimidated. When parliament was dissolved, their uneasiness and restraint disappeared; frivolous grandeur reassumed its full brilliancy, and the secret ambition of every one was at liberty. The court wished for no more; and cared little that a revolution in the government must take place in order to satisfy them.

The people judged otherwise: the dissolution,

in their eyes, was a sure symptom of a deep-laid scheme, of a resolution to do away with parliaments. The commons were no sooner dissolved, than, at Hampton Court, Whitehall, and wherever the court assembled, those who were papists in their hearts and those who were so openly-the servants and preachers of absolute power, men of intrigue and pleasure, the indifferent to all creeds-already congratulated one another on their triumph; whilst in the Tower, in the principal prisons of London and the counties, the defenders of public rights, treated at the same time with rigour and contempt, were confined and impeached for what they had said in the inviolable sanctuary of parliament. They claimed their privilege to have their liberty upon finding bail; the judges hesitated to answer; but the king commanded the judges', and the requests of the prisoners were refused. In this trial their courage did not fail them; the greater number refused to own themselves guilty, and to pay the fines that were imposed upon them. They preferred remaining in prison. Sir John Elliot died there.

It

While this prosecution lasted, public anger increased daily, and was openly manifested. was a sort of continuation of the vanquished and dispersed parliament, still struggling before the

The members arrested were, Hollis, Sir Miles Hobart, Sir John Elliot, Sir Peter Hayman, Selden, Coriton, Long, Strode, and Valentine; State Trials, vol. iii. p. 235-335.

In September, 1629; Old Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 374.

judges of the country, through the voice of its leaders. The firmness of the accused kept up the ardour of the people; they saw them pass and repass from the Tower to Westminster, and accompanied them with their acclamations and their cheers. The visible anxiety of the judges still gave them some expectations. It was said that all was lost; yet hope and fear still continued as much as in the midst of the struggle.

But these great trials ended. Frightened or seduced, some of the accused paid the fine; and, condemned to live at least ten miles from the royal residence, retired to conceal their weakness in the provinces. The noble perseverance of the others was buried in dungeons. The people, who saw and heard no more of them, became quiet, and ceased to interfere. Charles, meeting no longer with any opponents, thought himself master of the country from which he had just estranged himself. He hastened the peace with France and Spain, and felt himself at last without rivals in his kingdom, or enemies abroad.

To govern, for a while, was easy. The citizens only thought of their private interests: no great debate, no warm excitement, agitated gentlemen in their county meetings, townsmen in their municipal assemblies, sailors in the ports, or apprentices in their shops. It was not that the nation vegetated in apathy; its activity had

с

April 14th, 1629.

November 5th, 1630.